Puggo GRANDE - 16mm restoration (Released) — Page 26

Fenriz said:

You all do such a great job, really... perhaps most people out there, especially the generation, which is growing up in this sterile, plastic, CGI filled, dehumanized movie culture can`t nearly appreciate nor understand how important your work is.

I have faith in the upcoming generation(s).  Remember, Harmy himself is but 23 himself, right?  In fact, I think it's more likely the younger folks are going to be the ones to ultimately save these films.

Well, that was more than I could justify anyways.  But too bad I can't read German... didn't even know that buy it now was an option!

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Well, that was more than I could justify anyways.  But too bad I can't read German... didn't even know that buy it now was an option!

google chrome has a translation feature, i use for

foreign sites. it's decent.

later

-1

Atlantis said:

Sorry it's not mentioned in the first post. Is there a DVD Cover designed for this release?

Yes, a very cool one, but I didn't make it.  Just peruse older pages and you should be able to find it.

The workprinter Puggo has is strictly for SD video. And so is the software.

As he has said you are not going to get better video anyway with HD as these prints are not pristine.

He got the gate enlarged so it captures the whole squeezed image which would be Un-squeezed on projection with an anamorphic lens.

The workprinter triggers frame capture that takes place in a stop-motion software called "cinecap".  Cinecap is made to capture DV frames and assemble them on the fly into .avi.  You can't just hook a different sort of camera to it because the images won't be compatible with the software. Even if they were, if there were more resolution it wouldn't be able to keep up (already it requires a Raid-0 disk array so it doesn't lose frames).  The more recent HD models have additional special hardware that enables it to handle the greater data throughput.

There would be an improvement in video quality in HD.  But not enough for me to justify the expense right now.

Remember that the quality can always be improved.  If I were to switch to HD, the next question would be, why not do an RGB transfer?  Then, why not do a native scope transfer?  Then, why not a wet transfer?  How about a 2K - no, 4K transfer? For mortals like us, there is always a step up.  We could probably spend $50K transferring these grungy 16mm films if we really want to.  My whole philosophy for doing them is so that they are available as research reference material for the forum members, and I'm delighted to see them getting frequent use in this capacity.  I never had imagined that people would want to watch them (although that's cool that some people do).

I happened to have already had this telecine setup... I didn't buy it for this purpose (although I have invested in several modifications for it because of the SW projects).  If someone wants to invest in the equipment necessary to make the very best possible transfer of the 16mm prints, that's fine, but I can't justify it given that in the end even the very best 16mm print is still going to be a grossly cropped, grainy, low-resolution image, in some cases with lint burned right into the emulsion.

The DVD is fine to me and i like the retro quality and charm of the projects you do.

Derann 8mm in Italy for sale.  Anybody thinking about getting it?  Stupid ebay has this buy now pay later thing which might get me in trouble some day lol.

that looks pretty damn good to me! :)

Man these things are getting pricey!

Ok that looks pretty cool!

"Worth" is whatever someone will pay for it.  If I were in the market for a print, I'd probably hold out for a good 16mm.  But there are people who screen 8mm prints, and for them a great quality copy of SW would probably be increasingly valuable, since projected with a good projector it probably looks better than the GOUT.

I was just reading about that on SaveStarWars the other day, and supposedly the Derann is much higher quality than most 16mms.

But it also said you (Puggo) couldn't transfer them because your workprinter won't hold 600 ft of film (or whatever length it was).

I can't say for sure whether the Derann prints would make better copies than a 16mm print.  My experience with using the workprinters is that the 16mm prints have noticeably higher resolution.  However, with a different method of digitizing, perhaps a Derann print could look better, I don't know.  The Deranns have very good color.  But the 16mm print I'm using for PSB also has very good color.  The Deranns are probably cropped less severely.  My worry would be about getting good resolution.

Given the workprinters that I have, I'm 95% sure that if I made a copy of one, that it wouldn't look as good as the PG.  For one thing, the gate and claw drive in the GAF projectors on which the 8mm Workprinters are based are not as stable as they should be, so the frames don't line up quite as perfectly and it can affect the focus too when a print is even just slightly warped.  That's not a knock on the Deran prints, it's a knock on the Workprinter-XP.  The 16mm Workprinter is much better in this regard. But even with a better telecine, for an 8mm print to beat a 16mm print I'd have to see it to be convinced... I've never seen a telecined 8mm print that looked that good played on a big screen.  I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think it would take a better telecine than the workprinter.

It's such a shame that's expensive! It actually looks pretty fantastic. If nobody bids on it, maybe a forum member could try and strike a deal outside of ebay with the seller?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

The Deranns have very good color.  But the 16mm print I'm using for PSB also has very good color.

 I was, of course, referring to the first movie ;)

But mostly it's just wishful thinking. I'm not sure spending that much money would really be justified considering the fact that there's 35mms out there (though I've only seen screen grabs, I don't know what the actual details are on that project).